elements_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even with destructiveHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it preserves child order and rejects broken href references. It also clarifies scope constraints such as 'same-parent' and 'non-layer group,' which are not present in the annotations or schema. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation, constraints, ordering guarantee, and validation behavior. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool, the description covers the key constraints and edge-case behaviors (same-parent only, non-layer group only, child order, href validation), while the output schema covers return expectations. It does not explain the revision-checking requirement, but the parameter name expectedRevision is reasonably self-explanatory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description does not explain individual parameters like groupId, ids, or expectedRevision, but it does clarify the two modes of operation (group vs. ungroup), which slightly reinforces the action enum. This is an adequate baseline-3 situation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it groups or ungroups SVG elements, with precise constraints ('same-parent', 'one non-layer group'). It also adds distinguishing behavior ('preserving child order', 'rejecting broken href references'), making it clearly separable from sibling tools like elements_update or elements_arrange.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the core use cases: grouping same-parent elements and ungrouping a single non-layer group. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used, but the constraints in the description provide enough context for basic selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.